See Set Default Music Font Warning Message (finalemusic.com)
I've been test-driving the demo (despite it being expired on day 1.)
SMuFL was one of the few things I was excited about, but if I can't convert existing files, (w/o MXML export/import) it's pointless.
Given that, and some other problems, guess I'll stick with v25.5 for a bit longer.
Legacy font conversion is on their roadmap for v27. How soon it gets here, though...
https://www.finalemusic.com/blog/sneak-peek-2-smufl-support/
As much I am enjoying the new SMuFL-ized fonts and appreciate how much work that was to accomplish, I hope there is more than just SMuFL updates planned for v27.
I didn't read the blog closely enough - I thought they meant it would be in 27, not a later update to 27.
I've got 20+ years of Finale content. When I revisit an old work (e.g. on my to-do list right now is take a brass quintet and add percussion parts) I would prefer to convert to SMuFL. I'm even OK with that being uni-directional.
It may not stop me from upgrading, but it takes away one motivation.
This brings up a point that I was planning on making a separate post. And maybe I still, will.
We get a lot of "I'm not going to upgrade, because they didn't <your favorite beef, here>." If everyone felt that way, and didn't upgrade, then where will the money come from to make the improvements you want? Yes, paid upgrades every couple of years is not really that much different than a subscription plan, but it does give MM the revenue stream. Of course, we would all be happier with more openness and responsiveness from the company. Their failure to use some long-term beta testers prior to this release is most concerning. And eventually, we will probably be ticked off enough, that we stop upgrading. And then, Finale will wither away, corporate will take whatever money is left, and run. Fade to black.
As a software developer, I don't entirely disagree...but it's a two-way street. If the Finale upgrades don't add any value, why should customers pay for them? And there are other options.
Nevertheless, I've hung in there. I have paid for '97 and upgrades to '99, '01, '04, '06, '09, '11, '14 and 25. (IIRC) Some of those added serious value, a few were problematic at best - but some really basic bugs and workflow problems have persisted since the beginning.
On the openness and responsiveness front, I tend to contrast it with Reaper - I wish more software companies had update cycles and reliability records like theirs. I understand that the DAW and notation market demographics are very different, but still.
Please sign in to leave a comment.
5 comments
Date Votes